Dismissed

Rohit Chhabra v. Kaushal Tyagi

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jul 2013CR/3086/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed a revision petition against an order directing a defendant to discover a document referenced in his written statement. The court held that since the defendant relied on the document's details without producing it despite the court's direction, he must justify its custody; otherwise, he faces penalties under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the direction for document discovery and warning against non-compliance with penalties.

Rohit Chhabra Vs Kaushal Tyagi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CR No. 3086 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No. 3086 of 2013(O&M) Date of decision July 12, 2013

¶5

Rohit Chhabra

¶6

....... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shri Kaushal Tyagi

¶9

........ Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. N. D. Achint, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

¶14

K. Kannan, J (oral).

¶15

The revision is against the order directing the

¶16

defendant to make a discovery of the document which is referred to in elaboration in the written statement. Copy of the written statement has been produced on direction by this Court along with an application CM NO.14545-CII of 2013. The application is allowed and the written statement is taken on record.

¶17

In the written statement the defendant has contended that “Ultimately the plaintiff came on 30.4.2006 and writing was executed between the parties vide writing dated 30.4.2006, duly signed and acknowledged by both the parties and duly signed by the witnesses which contents are reproduced as under.” The petitioner

¶18

CR No. 3086 of 2013 (O&M)

¶19

¶20

has produced the whole of the details of contents of the document in writing dated 30.4.2006. The contents of the document run to two pages. It is not the contention of the defendant that the recitals were drawn from the memory. Evidently the document is in the custody of the defendant and the Court has found reason to cause the production of the document, since the same is relevant for the disposal of the case.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner now states that the document is not in his custody and the plaintiff is at liberty to rely on secondary evidence. When the document is shown to be in the custody of the adversary, it shall be lawful at all times for a party to rely on secondary evidence in terms of Section 65. It is a facilitative provision and does not exhaust remedies open under law, for, in this case the defendant has made reference to the document in his written document which is relevant for disposal of the case and the same is not produced in spite of a direction from the Court. The legal consequences of such non-compliance ought to follow. I cannot accept the bald contention that the document is not in the custody of the defendant-petitioner. It behoves on the defendant also to make a disclosure of how the party made a reference to the document with elaborate details in the written statement. If such a disclosure is not made, it only means that the defendant is trying to conceal an important fact and obstruct the course of justice for the Court to assess the truth. The consequences of non-compliance are detailed under Order 11 Rule 21 that includes power of the Court to direct the defence to be struck off. The revision has been moved

¶22

CR No. 3086 of 2013 (O&M)

¶23

¶24

before such compliance. The Court below is at liberty to adopt the procedure as set out in law.

¶25

The revision petition is dismissed with the

¶26

above observations.

¶27

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶28

July 12, 2013 archana

Rohit Chhabra v. Kaushal Tyagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Chhabra v. Kaushal Tyagi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harbans Lal Joshi Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Makhan Ram and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Bhagwan Pal Singh Vs Ramesh Pal Singh and Anr.

Ajay Aggarwal and Ors. Vs Kumari Veena and Anr.

Balbir Singh and Anr. Vs Amolak Ram

Jamait Singh Vs State of Haryana etc.